Episode 103: Law and Gospel (part 17)

Anglican hymnody, Genesis 1, Christopher Hitchins, erotica, and when we finally get around to it – mortal and venial sins according to CFW Walther, and a little quarrel with Walther on the proper distinction of mortal and venial sin. It’s a moment.

Chris E. and Erich: Yes, this seems to be an extension of that conversation. Much of it appears to flow out of Luther’s observation concerning David. Luther is addressing teachings in the radical side of the Reformation that were saying essentially “once saved, always saved” and that sin no longer matters and poses no threat to faith and salvation. Walther, on the other hand, seems to identify this with intentionality, so that what makes a sin faith-destroying is its intentionality. Coupled with this is the so-called “third use of the Law.” A lot of this hinges on how one sees the “simul” of “simul justus et peccator” and the proper distinction of the Law and the Gospel as applied to the sinner/saint.

Forde made the point that God’s promise in Christ is radically unconditional. It throws our old being into shock. In protest we offer up pious questions to fight for some measure of control, to introduce conditionality back into the scheme.

But the answer to our objections is always a resounding “Yes” …

Do you mean there’s nothing for me to do? …
Yes! It’s all been done for you.

Do you mean that everything depends on Christ?
Yes! God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

“Do you mean I can’t say no?” …
“Yes!, you can’t say no” … “one is not forced here … one is made new”
“The old being cannot survive the promise”

The language of “forced” is the language of decision theology. Repentance and faith are a package deal … you get one, you get them both. We were dead. We’ve been raised to life. We are not robots, but we are new creatures in Christ and as such we do what we now want to do which is repent and believe (sometimes).

Concerning your comments on Genesis: Have you listened to Wilken’s discussion on Genesis (first 20 minutes) regarding authorship of Genesis (24 hr marathon)? A prof at St. Louis is writing the CPH commentary. He puts forth the idea that Moses was more of an editor compiling various writings: Adam, Noah, Abraham etc. Moses is more like Luke in Genesis. Moses is the author but like Luke, he puts together history from those who were there. The thought intrigues me and I like the thought that we have Adam’s words, Noah’s, Abraham’s and others. Yes, Moses could have been inspired to write these words apart from these saints, but it seems a bit ahistorial. Your thoughts…